10 popular fallacies and misconceptions about evolution

and giants fit in where?

yt: Giants of Ancient America/ The mound builder; Jim Vieira
www.youtube.com...

“The gift of mental power comes from God, Divine Being, and if we concentrate our minds on that truth, we become in tune with this great power. My mother taught me to seek all truth in the Bible.”
--Nikola Tesla

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being.”
--Sir Isaac Newton, Principia, Book 3

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
--Max Planck

“When the answer is simple, God is answering.”
--Einstein

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
--Dr. Fred Hoyle (scientist who coined the term "Big Bang" who was unafraid to go wherever the facts led him, and who consequently recanted his atheism.)

Head of Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, converts to Christianity
"I set out to prove that my atheist position was correct."

“Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. But this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some First Mover.”
--Aristotle, “Physics”

“One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all... To be forced to believe only one conclusion--that everything in the universe happened by chance--would violate the very objectivity of science itself.”
--Werner von Braun, Letter to CA State Board of Education, 9/14/72

"The laws of nature produce no events, they state the pattern to which every event have only and can be induced to happen, must conform. Just as the rules of Arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions of money, must conform, if only you can get a hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of nature cover the whole field of space and time. In another what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe. The incessant "
"For every law says in the last resort: 'If you have A, then B."
But first catch your A.
The laws will not do it for you."
--C.S.Lewis
12 min

“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the Divine.”
--Dr. Vera Kistiakowski, Prof. of Physics Emeritus, MIT

“I stand in awe of God because of what He has done through his creation. Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God.”
--Dr. James Tour, Nanoscientist, Rice Univ.

“If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us.”
Paul Davies, Superforce, (1984)

"My worldly faculties are slipping away day by day Happy it is for all of us that the true good does not lie in them.

As they ebb, may they leave us as little children, trusting in the Father of Mercies and accepting His unspeakable gift.

I bow before Him who is Lord of all.

" Michael Faraday, on his death bed, one of the greatest experimental philosophers, Doctorate from Oxford University, holding 97 unsought for distinctions who discovered Electricity

youtube: The Case For A Creator With Lee Strobel
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Nice use of the Appeal to Authority fallacy there. I could list off a bunch of esteemed scientists who have no faith in higher powers but that's also irrelevant. A scientist's belief in a higher power is not any more authoritative than a layman's belief in a higher power. No credible scientist would ever claim to have objective evidence for their personal faith because none exists.

a reply to: GetHyped

It's not like there's anything to be taken seriously anyway. Not only is it a half assed appeal to authority, its a quote mining marathon of links almost entirely from or related to the Institute for Creation Research and not a single word or opinion of their own but they really think they're refuting the science. To say its just silly is being overly generous.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm creating this thread to list 10 popular fallacies and misconceptions that evolution deniers (usually YECers) use to try to disprove evolution with as well as the truth about those misconceptions. The list is in no particular order. The reason for the thread is because I'm tired of repeating this to people who insist these statements are true or call the theory of evolution into suspect. They don't.

By the way, if there are more that you'd like to add, please feel free. Please post the refutation to the misconception as well as a source that confirms the refutation in addition to the misconception you are adding to my thread. I'm not trying to make this thread to laugh at the ignorant, I want to educate them so that they stop making these mistakes.

1. There is no evidence for evolution

Ok we are going to start out with the big goto misconception here. Ok folks, if you ever find yourself repeating this phrase, stop speaking, then slap yourself because you just forgot how to use google.

evidence for evolution (google search)

Evidence for evolution CLEARLY exists, what problem you as an evolution denier have is that you don't ACCEPT the evidence and the conclusion it presents. But to say that it doesn't exist is just pure lunacy.

2. C-14 dating is unreliable and therefore cannot be trusted

Actually it is very reliable, but as can be seen here, it is only reliable up to about 60,000 years ago. 100,000 if you use accelerator techniques. If you'll notice both of these year markers are WELL below the required millions of years timescale that evolution works on. Here is a list of modern radiometric dating methods that go back MUCH further than carbon-14. Radiometric dating - modern dating methods. If you have a problem with Carbon-14 dating, who cares? It certainly doesn't matter when talking about evolution.

I had to stop at number two.

If you believe what you wrote, you don't understand the difference between logical validity and paradigmic validity...

The premises required for this to be accurate are logically invalid because they rely on a unknowable quantity of carbon in the air in the distant past that is impossible to measure.

And any methods for attempting to verify that (i.e. ice core samples) fall under the same fallacy of not being verifiable as being a certain age as in even the recent past they extrapolate for the dating of core samples and carbon samples based on extremely short durations of time all in recent history.

There is no way to know that these amounts or rates of application/erosion were the same even two hundred years ago, let alone 60 or 100K years ago.

BTW, I'm not a denier of anything except paradigmic fact based on logical fallacy...

Jaden

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: Krazysh0t
How do you deal with the time period and mutation that has to occure to produce a human?

The same way I deal with the time period and mutation that has to occur to produce any other species on the planet. Humans aren't more evolved than any other organism on the planet. All organisms are equally evolved to fit their environment. Perhaps you'd like to explain why the human body is so inefficient at pretty much anything it does (except rational thinking), because evolution easily explains that.

Humans did not evolve otherwise what we would have fur to protect us from the weather. We would be able to drink dirty water like a dog or scavenge for food eating it raw. Humans are the most ill prepared by mother nature to survive in nature through instinct and adaptation.

originally posted by: kayej1188
a reply to: guitarplayer

Are you aware of how often our DNA actually mutates every single day? For every cell in our body that turns over millions of times per day, there are hundred and thousands of DNA copying mistakes. Some are repaired by DNA repair mechanisms, some are silent mutations, some have negative outcomes.

Also, to the people that ask "Why havent we seen one species turn into another species?" These people clearly do not understand the time scale over which this change occurs.

so tell me how long does the mutation take to form a 50 trillion cell human?

originally posted by: Masterjaden

I had to stop at number two.

If you believe what you wrote, you don't understand the difference between logical validity and paradigmic validity...

The premises required for this to be accurate are logically invalid because they rely on a unknowable quantity of carbon in the air in the distant past that is impossible to measure.

And any methods for attempting to verify that (i.e. ice core samples) fall under the same fallacy of not being verifiable as being a certain age as in even the recent past they extrapolate for the dating of core samples and carbon samples based on extremely short durations of time all in recent history.

There is no way to know that these amounts or rates of application/erosion were the same even two hundred years ago, let alone 60 or 100K years ago.

BTW, I'm not a denier of anything except paradigmic fact based on logical fallacy...

Jaden.

I'm not a geologist so I'm going to skip over yr claims on erosion and get to the crux of your issues with C-14. You have an problem with it because you can't know the amount of C-14 at Amy given time in the past. This tells me you're not terribly familiar with how this particular dating method works. It's not based on the amount of carbon X amount of years ago, its based on the amount of carbon the organic material contains at the time it was tested. The beta particles decay at a constant rate with a fairly negligible margin of error. This margin of error is almost always included in the dates given. If it is not and there is only a single date with no +/- given for the margin tht means that they are giving you the median date, I.E. the very middle of what the margin of error is. The constant rate of decay for beta particles in C-14 converting back to N-14 has a half life of 5370 years. It's not a matter of paradigm, its a matter of fact.

a reply to: guitarplayer

Hello,

You must be trolling. Certainly you realize that humans are covered in hair, can drink dirty water (and in many parts of the world do), and can eat raw foods (and in many parts of the world do).

I refuse to believe you are being serious here.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: guitarplayer

That all depends on what you consider your starting point and what you consider human. You have to understand the variables before you can run the numbers.

originally posted by: guitarplayer
Humans did not evolve otherwise what we would have fur to protect us from the weather. We would be able to drink dirty water like a dog or scavenge for food eating it raw. Humans are the most ill prepared by mother nature to survive in nature through instinct and adaptation.

This is... nonsense. Do you really believe this utter crap?

a reply to: hydeman11

That hair on your body will not protect you from the sun the cold or any other climate condition. You may be able to drink some dirty water but eventually you will die from parasites. Give me your address so I can ship some road kill and let me see you eat it all raw and not get violently sick. To label someone a troll rather than discuss facts is about as juvenile as one can get.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

OK lets drop you into a secluded enviroment with just your body no shoes no clothing and such and see how long you live. Care to volenteer?

a reply to: guitarplayer

Just like with any other organism alive today and that had ever lived on earth, there will be issues when you remove it from its environmental niche and drop it into one that it's completely unsuited for or in the case of HSS, unprepared for. As we are HSS, our greatest evolutionary advantage is our ability to think outside the box. Most people assume that bipedalism is what made us who we are but when you compare anatomy and morphology, Homo Erectus was a much better, more efficient bipedal walker than we are. Our ability to think and create is what really makes us what we are. This is what allows us to survive in a multitude of climates and geographic niches.

Your analogy between eating road kill and raw meat is just silly. There's a massive difference between eating decaying meat festering with bacteria that's been laying in the sun vs. someone who kills and eats meat raw. There is a whole segment of the population who swear by a raw meat diet and are surviving and thriving quite well with no consequences to their health. Because we are so used to eating coined foods the bacteria in our digestive tracts has adapted to that type of diet. However by owls reintroducing raw meat you can alter that particular system.

a reply to: guitarplayer

Howdy,

Apologies, I've been having a rough week. You're absolutely correct, I should address the issues at hand a bit more clearly.

So, let's start with the hair issue. You seem to be implying that humans should be cold weather animals. This is an assumption, please provide some evidence for your claim. See, I think humans do better in warmer climates, in general, where excess body heat trapped by thick fur might cause problems. However, goosebumps and our current hairy bodies suggest that we do have ancestry with thickly furred animals.

Now, as for water quality, you seem to think that dogs do not get parasites from drinking bad water or eating uncooked meats (you never used the word meat, by the way. I assumed you meant meat, and I can tell you that raw meat can actually be quite delicious when fresh). I can tell you that yes, even canines get parasites. It's actually human intervention that keeps canines healthy.
pets.webmd.com...

That said, not all waterways are infested with parasites, and even if they were, I think there are more pressing issues at hand. I'd be more worried about bacterial and viral illness rather than parasitic infection, as although the parasites might be a long term problem, bacterial and viral illnesses can cause serious medical problems almost immediately. I point you in the direction of dysentery, which is quite a serious problem in less industrialized nations even today.
en.wikipedia.org...

So the smart solution would be to drink clean, running water. Of course, humans with their evolutionarily derived intelligence (whenever available) will choose to drink clean water over stagnant scummy pond water.

As for road kill, you never mentioned that the raw "food" (again, you did not say meat) wouldn't be fresh. Fresh meat can even be considered a delicacy, and is something the human body can certainly handle. Here's an article discussing a man who has claimed to eat a lot of raw meat over the course of 5 years.
www.theguardian.com...

Of course, I wouldn't recommend it. Luckily, humans don't need often need to eat raw meat, as humans have developed many different ways to prepare meats (drying, curing, salting, cooking...) so as to make them safe to eat. Sure, it's not natural, but it's the path our evolving brains took us on.

Humans are incredibly adaptable, creating tools to overcome their weaknesses in all environments, even those environments that humans were not "meant" to live in. You seem to be under the impression that intelligence is not an adaptation that has been selected by natural means, so let me demonstrate how this could be...

Say I have some distant ancestor in my family tree. He drinks stagnant water, he dies. His brother saw this, and chooses to drink fast, flowing water. He lives and passes on his genes. Nature has selected for this behavior.

Now, you claim that humans are ill suited to many of their environments. I agree. We've gone beyond natural means of living, and we thus cannot live naturally in many of our environments. If not for our intelligence, we'd certainly not be where we are as a species today.

That said, what are you arguing for? That humans couldn't have evolved on Earth because they can't survive in the natural environments they currently live in? Do you believe they were created by something and put on Earth in conditions obviously not ideal for them by a benevolent deity? Did aliens make us as a slave force? We obviously exist, so by what means did we end up here?

If you consider that, I think the obvious answer is evolution and stepping beyond our habitable environments by artificial means, much like breeding dogs is considered artificial selection. Natural selection is not the only governing force in nature.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

OK lets drop you into a secluded enviroment with just your body no shoes no clothing and such and see how long you live. Care to volenteer?

We've been domesticating ourselves for thousands of years - it's no wonder we have become accustomed to having an animal skin wrapped around us.

I don't see how that supports the ridiculous idea that humans did not evolve.

The terms micro evolution and macro evolution were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution Variabilität und Variation. When scientists do use the terms they do not use them the same way creationists do. For biologists there isn't any relevant difference between micro and macro evolution because they both happen in the same way and same reasons. When the terms are used they are for description only. Micro is 1 Macro is Micro 1 + Micro 1 to make the macro put simply 1+1=2 2 being the macro.

They are not different processes they are the same process. Macro evolution is the descriptive term for the accumulation of many micro evolution's.

Sorry to those here that understand this because i know I am simply repeating myself in different ways but I am doing it for those who do not understand at this point so maybe they will reach a Eureka moment and finally get it.

To those that still insist that macro evolution cannot occur I would like to here from them what are the established barriers that can't be crossed. That is assuming they already admit that micro evolution occurs and is observable. Those that deny such are denying observable reality which is like denying their or my existence.

I will say this much, all the Scientists can see a massive pattern in the Universe, one that goes beyond the regular thought of "Evolution".

Evolution denotes that things are all happening "naturally".

Religion implies only a GOD controls everything.

Both sides are ridiculously inadequate, and yet are hand in hand controlling the thoughts of everyone on the dam planet, I pose that BOTH are the enemy in every way, and are the rantings of the criminally insane, the ravings of completely controlled and unable to see.

SO many more scenarios can be seen, that I will not even mention them, luckily they will be transmitted anyways.

a reply to: Masterjaden

You should read the links on radiometric dating thoroughly. You don't have a good grasp of how it works. Also, you clearly didn't read this line (that you even quoted from me).

If you have a problem with Carbon-14 dating, who cares? It certainly doesn't matter when talking about evolution.

But regardless, what you described isn't how radiometric dating works. Half-life dating works on percentages. Every x number of years the isotope decays to half its size from x years ago. So it matters little how MUCH carbon (or whatever isotope you are measuring) was at, its all about the percentage that it has decayed from its starting point. If you start with 1000 and after the first half-life you have 500 or if you start with 10000 and after the first half-life you have 5000 its STILL 50% in both cases (then 25% then 12.5% and so on with each half-life).

originally posted by: guitarplayer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: guitarplayer
a reply to: Krazysh0t
How do you deal with the time period and mutation that has to occure to produce a human?

The same way I deal with the time period and mutation that has to occur to produce any other species on the planet. Humans aren't more evolved than any other organism on the planet. All organisms are equally evolved to fit their environment. Perhaps you'd like to explain why the human body is so inefficient at pretty much anything it does (except rational thinking), because evolution easily explains that.

Humans did not evolve otherwise what we would have fur to protect us from the weather. We would be able to drink dirty water like a dog or scavenge for food eating it raw. Humans are the most ill prepared by mother nature to survive in nature through instinct and adaptation.

You do realize that we DID have hair before right? As our species gets older, we've been losing hair. Here a link with new ideas on our hairlessness.

Evolution helped turn hairless skin into a canvas for self-expression

About 1.5 to 2 million years ago, early humans, who were regularly on the move as hunters and scavengers, evolved into nearly hairless creatures to more efficiently sweat away excess body heat, said Nina Jablonski, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology. Later, humans began to decorate skin to increase attractiveness to the opposite sex and to express, among other things, group identity.

"We can make a visual impact and present a completely different impression than we can with regular, undecorated skin," said Jablonski, who reports on her research on Feb. 16 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston.

Over the millennia, people turned their skin into canvases of self-expression in different ways, including permanent methods, such as tattooing and branding, as well as temporary ones, including cosmetics and body painting, according to the researcher.

We also used to be able to eat things raw. That's one of the reasons that scientists believe we had wisdom teeth (because the raw meat is harder to chew), but as we started cooking our food, we no longer needed as big jaws and so our jaws shrank but the wisdom teeth remained.

ETA: Sourcing the wisdom teeth claim.
Are people without wisdom teeth more highly evolved?

There was a time when our jaws could comfortably accommodate all 32 teeth, including the third molars. You have to go back about 100 million years ago, though, to the prehistoric version of man. Instead of walking upright, this guy got around on all four limbs, with a massive protruding jaw leading the way.

Early man's jaws were larger and more prominent because teeth played a vital role in survival. With the front appendages occupied with balance and running, teeth were prehistoric man's means of catching, dismembering and consuming prey. Our ancestors subsisted on a tough and chewy diet of leaves, roots and raw meat. Having 32 teeth's worth of chewing ability was a huge advantage at this point, especially because early man didn't visit the dentist with the regularity we do today; third molars might have played an important backup role when teeth were lost or worn down.

Then evolution had its way with prehistoric man, and teeth weren't so important anymore. Hominids began walking upright, and arms took on a greater role in obtaining food. After that, brains became larger and jaws became shorter. Researchers still aren't exactly certain which came first, though in 2004, a team from the University of Pennsylvania announced they had discovered a gene called MYH16. Mutations in this gene lead to shorter jaws, which may have been the factor which allowed early man's brain to grow [source: Wilford]. However it happened, the change lessened the amount of space available to teeth in the mouth.

You know it's funny, you cite us being terribly adapted for nature as a reason why we couldn't have evolved, when that is easily explained by evolution; but how about explaining why a god would create us with such terrible adaptations? Why would god give us wisdom teeth or have crappy vision that has like a 50% of going bad before old age or make our legs so ill equipped for running? Evolution has answers for ALL of those questions by the way. Religion, not so much.